tv [untitled] May 18, 2011 9:30am-10:00am PDT
if i need to pull some more permits our, then i will have to do that. >> [inaudible] >> i thought that was included. i thought that was in the original building permit. commissioner murphy: are you a general contractor? >> yes, i am. commissioner murphy: i think a general contractor should note to pull separate permits. >> i am an electrical contractor. i have a general license. i do not act as a general very often. i am not a general general contractor. i have the license, but i do not utilize it as my source of income. i am more of an electrical contractor.
i thought it was included since they pulled the permit for the whole building. that was pulled by them. commissioner walker: do you have a contractor on this job? >> no, i am just doing it myself. commissioner mar: i i think he answered the questions from the two previous commissioners. thank you. commissioner lee: thank you. commissioners? commissioner walker: it seems pretty clear from the presentation back -- that the permits necessary for the work done were not drawn. i understand the frustration, but i think that's -- it is our job to actually support the proper process of getting permits, and when the does not happen, that is why we get here. i feel like maybe what we could
do is figure out the time necessary for actually taking the permits out and doing the work. i support the staff recommendation in this, so maybe we could figure out a time frame -- timeframe of implementing it like we do sometimes. do you have a sense of what it would take to implement and correct this problem? >> i think at this point, at the very least, we need to get the appropriate permits polled, and we probably need to do a cursory initial inspection to see to what extent the work has proceeded without a permit. we do not know how much work has been done up to this point without permits. as an electrical contractor, he is clearly aware that electrical
permits are separate from job cuts, so there could be a significant amount of work that has already been done that has not been seen, that has not been permitted. he could pull a permit on line in a day. i would not give him more than 15 days to pull a permit and get us out there to see what is going on. commissioner walker: the notice of violation in front of you right now pertains to the previous boiler. to update that violation, what he needs to do is pull a permit for the removal of the boiler that has already occurred -- to update that violation -- to abate that violation. commissioner murphy: they would need to pull a permit for that particular boiler only. >> yes. commissioner murphy: and get that abated. >> the removal of the boiler which already occurred without a permit.
commissioner walker: i would move that we are told the staff recommendation, uphold, i guess -- of hold the -- uphold teh abatement and give him 30 days to resolve this issue. commissioner murphy: i will second that motion. >> 30-day advisement to abate this violation. if it is not completed within 30 days, the order will be recorded. ok. >> well said. commissioner lee: do we have a second? i guess commissioner murphy second. >> roll call vote. president lee? commissioner lee: yes. commissioner mar: yes. commissioner murphy: yes.
commissioner lee: you have one month to get your permit and get it resolved. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner lee: next item please. >> the next item is item number d, which is the continuing appeal regarding an order of abatement. the case number is 6733. the address is 5 freemore street. this is just a continuance, so we will allow three minutes for each side. for the updates. do we have someone from the department first? commissioner lee: yes, could the department please come forward and give us a brief update of what is happening? >> good morning, commissioners.
the address by seymour street -- 5 seymour street. the case was previously held on november 17, 2010, continued to today. the violation, there was construction of a north elevation without permits. first and second notification were issued and on december 3 of 2009, an order of abatement was issued with conditions to file application to legalize, complete with review and time limits. there was a permit issued in june 12, 2008, that was application no. 200806124326. since our last appeal hearing,
that permit was issued. was issued on january 27 of this year. because of all the staff time we have invested in the case, we would still hope that you would of hold the order of abatement and impose the assessment of costs. that is our report. thank you. commissioner lee: any questions? no questions from commissioners? ok, the appellant. mr. montgomery. >> good morning, commissioners. i am the owner with my wife of five see more street -- syemour -- seymour street. the good news is we have been issued the permit.
has been my contention all along that the assessment of crosses in there because i have made what i believe to be a reasonable and appropriate progress to get this permit. i first applied for it in june of 2008, and i have sort of a time line here. it has been a long time, but i think the process is so slow that that is really how long it takes. i was issued the first notice of violation on february 2008 and the second notice on june of 2008. i filed for the permit that same month on the 12th. so the notice of abatement
costs came after i had filed for the permit. that is why i think it is unfair that that notice was given to me while i already had a permit file. commissioner murphy: when you file for the permit, do you have to have a plan drawn up and submitted to planning? >> certainly. i went through the whole process. since it is an old house, i had to go through the planning department and get a historical review. i had to answer two letters of requirement from planning. then, i was passed to planning. then my neighbors applied for a design review to oppose the
planning commission's permission. that was settled finally in september of 2010. it went back to the billing department and was finally issued in january of this year -- it went back to the building department and was finally issued in january of this year, january 27. as soon as the rain stops, i will correct the problems that i have. i have already paid -- this is related to a neighborhood disagreement -- i have already paid $1,000 in costs for a related issue. we share an alley, and i cannot get in that alley without their permission to take care of another violation, so i paid that just because there was no way i could correct it, but again, my contention is that i tried to get my permit to
correct the violations, and it was primarily the slow process of the city which kept me from accomplishing that. commissioner lee: commissioners, anymore? just to be clear?er: - >> it was 25 years ago, but, certainly, you are right. it did flow from that point. commissioner lee: ok, thank you. no other questions. we will take public comment. no public comment? ok, we will go back to the department for a quick rebuttal. >> there is no rebuttal. commissioner lee: ok, commissioners? commissioner walker: very happy
that this is coming to a resolution. i'm sure all parties involved are. my sense is that the initial violation, as i pointed out, stems from work without a permit. i think is fair that may be penalties should not accrue on this, but it seems that the initial proceedings or the additional -- the initial violation was because the work done without a permit, i would make a motion to uphold the abatement and maybe again allow time to effectuate the permit and support the staff's recommendation. move it forward. commissioner lee: what is the length of the permit? how long?
how long is it? commissioner murphy: general permits are a year at least, but normally when there is a code enforcement case, the timeline is set by the code enforcement process. even though it permit might have a normal three-year life span, our process, because there are violations involved, could dictate that it be done in a shorter time. what are the fines up to the date that he applied for the permits to planning? >> the initial fee at this point is $1,050. commissioner murphy: some of that have come after that date? >> there are no penalties that we would assess. we would simply assess whatever
time we invested in the case, though there will be more time since then for the preparation of the order of abatement and the posting, but as for now, $1,050 is the initial fee. commissioner murphy: why would time be spent on it if you guys knew that he had already filed for the permit? >> if you look at the time line, the first notice of violation was issued on february of 2008. no action was taken whatsoever. a second notice was issued in june four of 2008, and it was only after that second noticed that the permit was filed june 12. because they file that permit, we stopped the code enforcement process, to give them a chance to get the permit issued. no further progress took place. then, it was a result of that
lack of action that we scheduled a hearing >> it was since then, as we go through this process that finally the permit was issued on january 27. if we did not schedule this case for a hearing, maybe the permit may not have been issued. it may have originally been filed just to stop our process. that is just my speculation. clearly, this shows that through our code enforcement process, no action was taken. you go to the next step. another action is taken. now we are at the point where the permit is issued. hopefully, now that it is issued, the work will get done and we will have a final sign off. sometimes a permit can be issued. it may lie dormant. it can expired. i would hope that will not
happen here. >> i understand. i do have a question for the appellant. did planning approve it as it is? we have seen pictures. >> there are two windows we have to change. we have to remove 1 and change another and bring it back 6 feet from the front of the house. there are changes that have to be done. >> my second question is, how long is it going to take for you to get this finished and get it cleared up and get it signed off? >> is not a very big job, frankly. it may be three weeks of work. it just depends. i'm going to do it and i'm hopefully going to do it in june.
>> i am asking you how much time you need to do it. i do not want to be back here three months from now talking about the same thing. >> if i can have three months. i do not know what is available. if i could have a bottle, i do not understand. i'm willing to pay the assessment of costs and then go back into the pool where i have the regular permit process where i have one year to complete it. i'm not going to take one year. i want this off my plate, too. i do not see why we keep putting limits on my worked beyond the normal process. i could see it up to this point, because i was appealing the assessment of cost. if you find that i should pay those costs, i'm expecting or
hoping that i will pay those costs and i will have a typical permit with one year to get the work done. i do not agree with mr. hinton. it is not -- if the permit expires, the permit expires. it is not that he is looking over my back to prod me on. i do not understand the way he represented his role. also, in the order of abatement, it said the director here buy orders the owner of said building to comply with the following. 30 days to file a permit. i already had it filed. this is done in december.
i filed in june. princess 30 days to complete our work it says 30 days to complete our work. i can see his role all the way up to the point where i have my permit. then i am within the code. i will certainly submit to what ever you want to do. >> i'm trying to help you here. you want to drag it on for a year. >> that's not what i'm doing. i'm saying the permit gives me one year to complete the work. i'm not a licensed contractor. i do not think it is fair to be limited to three months.
commissioner walker: because you are here before us and it's our job to make a decision about what to do with this case, i move that we uphold the staff decision and give him 90 days to implement or execute the permits and then hold it -- get the legal language. i should write this down. commissioner murphy: get it signed off. commissioner walker: yes. the order of abatement you are reviewing originally give 30 days. you would be providing 90 days from today's date. commissioner murphy: ok. i will second that motion. >> upholding the cost until the time when the permit was applied for.
vice president mar: 90 days from today. commissioner walker: yes. >> i mean, there has to be some process that is consistent. i do not see that this is -- i will not go into it. thank you very much and i will complete the work in 90 days. commissioner walker: do we have a second on that? commissioners, just a clarification. i believe the department stated they were $1050 as of the day the permit was applied for, but there are additional costs since that time. and commissioner walker: can i
get clear on the additional costs? commissioner murphy: my understanding is that before you today is to uphold the order of abatement and to approve the assessment of cost to this point -- i'm sorry -- to the date of the hearing. any other costs since then i would assume would be dealt with when we did our final fee. it would not be under this. that is my understanding. commissioner walker: the cost assessed to the state is $100 0.50. commissioner lee: i will allow one minute. >> it is just that this assessment of cost issue -- in
any fine or any assessment of costs is some accounting as to what the costs are for, hours spent, people, and there's nothing. if i'm going to pay $1,000 or more, i would like to know for what i am. in -- for what i am paying. i think it is only fair. thank you. commissioner murphy: we would be happy to give him a breakdown of those things. commissioner walker: thank you. commissioner lee: we're back to the original motion, 90 days. >> president lee? >> yes. commissioner walker:? >> yes. commissioner murphy:? >> yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> the motion carries.